Argumentum advert Baculum ("Argument from the Club." Also, "Argumentum advert Baculam," "Argument from Strength," "Muscular Leadership," "Non-negotiable Demands," "Hard Power," Bullying, The power-Play, Fascism, Resolution by Force of Arms, Shock and Awe.): The fallacy of "persuasion" or "proving one is correct" by power, violence, brutality, terrorism, superior strength, uncooked military might, or threats of violence. E.g., "Gimmee your wallet or I'll knock your head off!" or "We have the proper proper to take your land, since we've the massive guns and you do not." Also applies to oblique types of risk. E.g., "Quit your foolish pleasure, kneel down and settle for our religion at present if you don't wish to burn in hell forever and ever!" A mainly discursive Argumentum advert Baculum is that of forcibly silencing opponents, ruling them "out of order," blocking, censoring or jamming their message, or simply speaking over them or/talking extra loudly than they do, this last a tactic particularly attributed to males in blended-gender discussions. Argumentum advert Mysteriam ("Argument from Mystery;" also Mystagogy.): A darkened chamber, incense, chanting or drumming, bowing and kneeling, special robes or headgear, holy rituals and massed voices reciting sacred mysteries in an unknown tongue have a quasi-hypnotic effect and might typically persuade extra strongly than any logical argument. The Puritan Reformation was in giant part a rejection of this fallacy. When used knowingly and deliberately this fallacy is especially vicious and accounts for a few of the fearsome persuasive energy of cults. An instance of an Argumentum ad Mysteriam is the "Way back and much Away" fallacy, the truth that information, proof, practices or arguments from historic occasions, distant lands and/or "exotic" cultures appear to acquire a special gravitas or ethos simply due to their antiquity, language or origin, e.g., publicly chanting Holy Scriptures of their original (most frequently incomprehensible) ancient languages, preferring the Greek, Latin, Assyrian or Old Slavonic Christian Liturgies over their vernacular variations, or utilizing traditional or newly invented Greek and Latin names for fallacies with a view to assist their validity. See additionally, Esoteric Knowledge. An obverse of the Argumentum advert Mysteriam is the usual Version Fallacy.

Argumentum ex Silentio (Argument from Silence): The fallacy that if out there sources stay silent or current information and proof can prove nothing about a given subject or question this reality in itself proves the truth of one's declare. E.g., "Science can tell us nothing about God. That proves God does not exist." Or "Science admits it might probably inform us nothing about God, so that you can't deny that God exists!" Often misused within the American justice system, where, opposite to the fifth Amendment and the authorized presumption of innocence till proven guilty, remaining silent or "taking the Fifth" is often falsely portrayed as proof of guilt. E.g., "Mr. Hixon can supply no alibi for his whereabouts the evening of January 15th. This proves that he was actually in room 331 at the Smuggler's Inn, murdering his wife with a hatchet!" In at this time's America, choosing to remain silent within the face of a police officer's questions can make one responsible sufficient to be arrested and even shot. See additionally, Argument from Ignorance. Availability Bias (also, Attention Bias, Anchoring Bias): A fallacy of logos stemming from the natural tendency to present undue consideration and importance to information that is instantly available at hand, particularly the primary or last information acquired, and to minimize or ignore broader knowledge or wider evidence that clearly exists however isn't as simply remembered or accessed. E.g., "We all know from experience that this does not work," when "expertise" means the newest local attempt, ignoring overwhelming experience from other places and instances where it has labored and does work. Also associated is the fallacy of Hyperbole [also, Magnification, or typically Catastrophizing] the place an immediate instance is immediately proclaimed "the most important in all of human history," or the "worst in the whole world!" This latter fallacy works extremely nicely with much less-educated audiences and people whose "whole world" may be very small certainly, audiences who "hate history" and whose historic reminiscence spans a number of weeks at finest.

The Bandwagon Fallacy (additionally, Argument from Common Sense, Argumentum advert Populum): The fallacy of arguing that because "everyone," "the individuals," or "the majority" (or somebody in power who has widespread backing) supposedly thinks or does something, it should subsequently be true and proper. E.g., "Whether there truly is giant scale voter fraud in America or not, many individuals now think there's and that makes it so." Sometimes also contains Lying with Statistics, e.g. "Over 75% of Americans imagine that crooked Bob Hodiak is a thief, a liar and a pervert. There might not be any proof, however for anybody with half a brain that conclusively proves that Crooked Bob should go to jail! Lock him up! Lock him up!" This is typically combined with the "Argumentum advert Baculum," e.g., "Prefer it or not, it's time to decide on sides: Are you going to get on board the bandwagon with everyone else, or get crushed under the wheels because it goes by?" Or in the 2017 phrases of former White House spokesperson Sean Spicer, ""They need to both get with this system or they'll go," A contemporary digital form of the Bandwagon Fallacy is the information Cascade, "in which people echo the opinions of others, often online, even when their own opinions or publicity to info contradicts that opinion. When data cascades form a sample, this pattern can begin to overpower later opinions by making it seem as if a consensus already exists." (Due to Teaching Tolerance for this definition!) See additionally Wisdom of the group, and The big Lie Technique. For the opposite of this fallacy see the Romantic Rebel fallacy. The large Brain/Little Brain Fallacy (additionally, the Führerprinzip; Mad Leader Disease): A not-uncommon but excessive example of the Blind Loyalty Fallacy below, through which a tyrannical boss, army commander, or religious or cult-leader tells followers "Don't assume with your little brains (the mind in your head), however with your Big brain (mine)." This last is sometimes expressed in constructive terms, i.e., "You don't have to fret and stress out concerning the rightness or wrongness of what you are doing since I, the Leader. am assuming all moral and authorized responsibility for all your actions. So lengthy as you are faithfully following orders with out question I will defend you and gladly accept all the results up to and together with eternal damnation if I'm mistaken." The alternative of this is the fallacy of "Plausible Deniability." See also, "Just Do It!", and "Gaslighting." The massive "But" Fallacy (also, Special Pleading): The fallacy of enunciating a generally-accepted precept and then immediately negating it with a "but." Often this takes the form of the "Special Case," which is supposedly exempt from the usual guidelines of law, logic, morality, ethics and even credibility E.g., "As Americans we've at all times believed on principle that every human being has God-given, inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, including in the case of criminal accusations a good and speedy trial before a jury of 1's peers. But, your crime was so unspeakable and a trial can be so problematic for nationwide safety that it justifies locking you up for all times in Guantanamo with out trial, conviction or possibility of enchantment." Or, "Yes, Honey, I nonetheless love you greater than life itself, and I know that in my wedding ceremony vows I promised before God that I'd forsake all others and be faithful to you 'till demise do us half,' but you may have to know, this was a particular case..." See also, "Shopping Hungry," and "We Should do Something!" The large Lie Technique (also the Bold Faced Lie; "Staying on Message."): The contemporary fallacy of repeating a lie, fallacy, slogan, talking-level, nonsense-statement or misleading half-reality again and again in several types (significantly in the media) till it turns into part of each day discourse and folks settle for it without additional proof or proof. Sometimes the bolder and extra outlandish the large Lie turns into the more credible it appears to a willing, most frequently angry audience. E.g., "What about the Jewish Problem?" Note that when this specific phony debate was occurring there was no "Jewish Problem," solely a Nazi Problem, however hardly anybody in energy recognized or needed to discuss that, whereas far too many unusual Germans had been only too able to find a convenient scapegoat to blame for his or her suffering throughout the great Depression. Writer Miles J. Brewer expertly demolishes The big Lie Technique in his classic (1930) quick story, "The Gostak and the Doshes." However, more contemporary examples of the big Lie fallacy could be the fully fictitious August 4, 1964 "Tonkin Gulf Incident" concocted below Lyndon Johnson as a false justification for escalating the Vietnam War, or the non-existent "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq (conveniently abbreviated "WMD's" in an effort to lend this Big Lie a legitimizing, military-sounding "Alphabet Soup" ethos), utilized in 2003 as a false justification for the Second Gulf War. The November, 2016 U.S. President-elect's assertion that "millions" of ineligible votes were solid in that year's American. presidential election appears to be a basic Big Lie. See additionally, Alternative Truth; The Bandwagon Fallacy, the Straw Man, Alphabet Soup, and Propaganda. Blind Loyalty (additionally Blind Obedience, Unthinking Obedience, the "Team Player" enchantment, the Nuremberg Defense): The harmful fallacy that an argument or motion is right merely and solely as a result of a respected chief or supply (a President, knowledgeable, one’s dad and mom, one's personal "facet," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) says it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a gravely corrupted argument from ethos that places loyalty above fact, above one's personal motive and above conscience. On this case an individual attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal habits by whining "That is what I used to be told to do," or "I was simply following orders." See also, The massive Brain/Little Brain Fallacy, and The "Soldiers' Honor" Fallacy. Blood is Thicker than Water (additionally Favoritism; Compadrismo; "For my friends, anything."): The reverse of the "Ad Hominem" fallacy, a corrupt argument from ethos where a press release, argument or motion is routinely considered true, appropriate and above problem because one is expounded to, knows and likes, or is on the identical workforce or side, or belongs to the same religion, social gathering, membership or fraternity as the individual involved. (E.g., "My brother-in-legislation says he noticed you goofing off on the job. You're a tough worker however who am I going to consider, you or him? You're fired!") See also the Identity Fallacy. Brainwashing (additionally, Propaganda, "Radicalization."): The Cold War-era fantasy that an enemy can immediately win over or "radicalize" an unsuspecting viewers with their vile but somehow unspeakably persuasive "propaganda," e.g., "Don't look at that webpage! They're trying to brainwash you with their propaganda!" Historically, "brainwashing" refers extra correctly to the inhuman Argumentum ad Baculum of "beating an argument into" a prisoner through a combination of ache, fear, sensory or sleep deprivation, prolonged abuse and sophisticated psychological manipulation (additionally, the "Stockholm Syndrome."). Such "brainwashing" may also be accomplished by pleasure ("Love Bombing,"); e.g., "Did you like that? I do know you probably did. Well, there's tons extra the place that got here from whenever you signal on with us!" (See also, "Bribery.") An unspeakably sinister type of persuasion by brainwashing involves deliberately addicting an individual to medication and then providing or withholding the substance depending on the addict's compliance. Note: Only the other aspect brainwashes. "We" never brainwash. Bribery (additionally, Material Persuasion, Material Incentive, Financial Incentive). The fallacy of "persuasion" by bribery, gifts or favors is the reverse of the Argumentum advert Baculum. As is well known, somebody who is persuaded by bribery rarely "stays persuaded" in the long term unless the bribes carry on coming in and increasing with time. See also Appeasement. Calling "Cards": A contemporary fallacy of logos, arbitrarily and falsely dismissing familiar or easily-anticipated however valid, reasoned objections to one's standpoint with a wave of the hand, as mere "cards" in some type of "recreation" of rhetoric, e.g. "Don't attempt to play the 'Race Card' in opposition to me," or "She's playing the 'Woman Card' once more," or "That 'Hitler Card' will not rating with me on this argument." See additionally, The Taboo, and Political Correctness. Circular Reasoning (additionally, The Vicious Circle; Catch 22, Begging the Question, Circulus in Probando): A fallacy of logos where A is due to B, and B is because of A, e.g., "You can't get a job without experience, and you can't get expertise and not using a job." Also refers to falsely arguing that something is true by repeating the identical statement in different words. E.g., "The witchcraft problem is essentially the most pressing spiritual disaster on the earth today. Why? Because witches threaten our very eternal salvation." A corrupt argument from logos. See additionally the "Big Lie method." The Complex Question: The contemporary fallacy of demanding a direct reply to a query that cannot be answered with out first analyzing or challenging the premise of the query itself. E.g., "Just answer me 'yes' or 'no': Did you think you possibly can get away with plagiarism and not suffer the implications?" Or, "Why did you rob that financial institution?" Also applies to conditions where one is pressured to either settle for or reject complicated standpoints or propositions containing both acceptable and unacceptable components. A corruption of the argument from logos. A counterpart of Either/Or Reasoning. Confirmation Bias: A fallacy of logos, the frequent tendency to note, search out, choose and share evidence that confirms one's own standpoint and beliefs, versus contrary evidence. This fallacy is how "fortune tellers" work--If I'm instructed I'll meet a "tall, darkish stranger" I will likely be looking out for a tall, darkish stranger, and after i meet someone even marginally meeting that description I'll marvel at the correctness of the "psychic's" prediction. In contemporary times Confirmation Bias is most frequently seen within the tendency of assorted audiences to "curate their political environments, subsisting on one-sided data diets and [even] choosing into politically homogeneous neighborhoods" (Michael A. Neblo et al., 2017, Science journal). Confirmation Bias (also, Homophily) means that individuals are likely to search out and observe solely those media shops that affirm their frequent ideological and cultural biases, sometimes to an diploma that leads a the false (implicit or even specific) conclusion that "everyone" agrees with that bias and that anybody who does not is "loopy," "looney," evil and even "radicalized." See also, "Half Truth," and "Defensiveness." Cost Bias: A fallacy of ethos (that of a product), the fact that one thing expensive (both in phrases of money, or one thing that's "laborious fought" or "onerous gained" or for which one "paid dearly") is generally valued more highly than one thing obtained free or cheaply, whatever the item's real high quality, utility or true worth to the purchaser. E. g., "Hey, I worked onerous to get this car! It may be nothing but a clunker that cannot make it up a steep hill, but it is mine, and to me it is better than some millionaire's limo." Also applies to judging the standard of a shopper merchandise (or even of its owner!) primarily by the item's brand, value, label or supply, e.g., "Hey, you there in the Jay-Mart go well with! Har-har!" or, "Ooh, she's driving a Mercedes!" Default Bias: (also, Normalization of Evil, "Deal with it;" "If it ain't broke, don't repair it;" Acquiescence; "Making one's peace with the scenario;" "Get used to it;" "Whatever is, is correct;" "It is what it is;" "Let it be, let it's;" "That is the best of all potential worlds [or, the only possible world];" "Better the satan you already know than the satan you don't."): The logical fallacy of mechanically favoring or accepting a state of affairs just because it exists right now, and arguing that some other alternative is mad, unthinkable, not possible, or at the least would take a lot effort, expense, stress or danger to alter. The opposite of this fallacy is that of Nihilism ("Tear it all down!"), blindly rejecting what exists in favor of what may very well be, the adolescent fantasy of romanticizing anarchy, chaos (an ideology generally known as political "Chaos Theory"), disorder, "everlasting revolution," or change for change's sake. Defensiveness (also, Choice-help Bias: Myside Bias): A fallacy of ethos (one's own), in which after one has taken a given determination, dedication or course of action, one routinely tends to defend that decision and to irrationally dismiss opposing options even when one's resolution later on proves to be shaky or flawed. E.g., "Yeah, I voted for Snith. Sure, he turned out to be a crook and a liar and he received us into war, however I still say that at the moment he was better than the out there options!" See additionally "Argument from Inertia" and "Confirmation Bias." Deliberate Ignorance: (additionally, Closed-mindedness; "I don't desire to hear it!"; Motivated Ignorance; Tuning Out; Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil [The Three Monkeys' Fallacy]): As described by author and commentator Brian Resnik on Vox.com (2017), that is the fallacy of simply selecting not to hear, "tuning out" or turning off any info, evidence or arguments that problem one's beliefs, ideology, standpoint, or peace of mind, following the favored humorous dictum: "Don't attempt to confuse me with the information; my thoughts is made up!" This seemingly innocuous fallacy has enabled probably the most vicious tyrannies and abuses over historical past, and continues to do so today. See additionally Trust your Gut, Confirmation Bias, The Third Person Effect, "They're All Crooks," the Simpleton's Fallacy, and The Positive Thinking Fallacy. Diminished Responsibility: The frequent contemporary fallacy of applying a specialised judicial idea (that criminal punishment needs to be less if one's judgment was impaired) to reality generally. E.g., "You cannot depend me absent on Monday--I used to be hung over and couldn't come to class so it isn't my fault." Or, "Yeah, I used to be dashing on the freeway and killed a guy, but I was buzzed out of my mind and did not know what I used to be doing so it did not matter that much." In reality the demise does matter very much to the victim, to his household and friends and to society usually. Whether the perpetrator was high or not does not matter at all since the fabric results are the identical. This also contains the fallacy of Panic, a very common contemporary fallacy that one's phrases or actions, no matter how damaging or evil, by some means don't "count" because "I panicked!" This fallacy is rooted within the confusion of "consequences" with "punishment." See additionally "Venting." Disciplinary Blinders: A quite common contemporary scholarly or professional fallacy of ethos (that of one's discipline, occupation or tutorial discipline), mechanically disregarding, discounting or ignoring a priori otherwise-relevant research, arguments and evidence that come from outdoors one's personal professional self-discipline, discourse neighborhood or academic space of study. E.g., "That might be relevant or not, but it's so not what we're doing in our subject right now." See additionally, "Star Power" and "Two Truths." An analogous fallacy is that of Denominational Blinders, arbitrarily ignoring or waving apart without severe consideration any arguments or dialogue about faith, morality, ethics, spirituality, the Divine or the afterlife that come from outside one's own particular religious denomination or religion tradition. Dog-Whistle Politics: An excessive version of reductionism and sloganeering in the public sphere, a contemporary fallacy of logos and pathos by which a brief phrase or slogan of the hour, e.g., "Abortion," "The 1%," "9/11," "Zionism,""Chain Migration," "Islamic Terrorism," "Fascism," "Communism," "Big authorities," "Taco trucks!", "Tax and tax and spend and spend," "Gun violence," "Gun control," "Freedom of alternative," "Lock 'em up,", "Amnesty," and so forth. is flung out as "red meat" or "chum within the water" that reflexively sends one's audience into a snapping, foaming-at-the-mouth feeding-frenzy. Any reasoned try to extra clearly identify, deconstruct or problem an opponent's "canine whistle" attraction leads to puzzled confusion at greatest and wild, irrational fury at worst. "Dog whistles" differ widely in several locations, moments and cultural milieux, and they change and lose or achieve energy so quickly that even recent historic texts sometimes become extraordinarily tough to interpret. A standard but unhappy instance of the fallacy of Dog Whistle Politics is that of candidate "debaters" of differing political shades merely blowing a succession of discursive "canine whistles" at their audience instead of addressing, refuting and even bothering to pay attention to one another's arguments, a situation resulting in contemporary (2017) allegations that the political Right and Left in America are speaking "totally different languages" when they are simply blowing different "dog whistles." See also, Reductionism.. The "Draw Your own Conclusion" Fallacy (also the Non-argument Argument; Let the Facts Speak for Themselves). In this fallacy of logos an otherwise uninformed viewers is offered with rigorously selected and groomed, "shocking details" after which prompted to right away "draw their very own conclusions." E.g., "Crime charges are more than twice as excessive amongst center-class Patzinaks than amongst some other related inhabitants group--draw your personal conclusions." It is well known that those who are allowed to "come to their own conclusions" are usually rather more strongly convinced than those who are given each proof and conclusion up front. However, Dr. William Lorimer factors out that "The only rational response to the non-argument is 'So what?' i.e. 'What do you suppose you've proved, and why/how do you suppose you have proved it?'" Closely associated (if not equivalent) to that is the properly-recognized "Leading the Witness" Fallacy, where a sham, sarcastic or biased query is requested solely as a way to evoke a desired reply. The Dunning-Kruger Effect: A cognitive bias that leads people of limited expertise or information to mistakenly consider their talents are greater than they really are. (Because of Teaching Tolerance for this definition!) E.g., "I know Washington was the Father of His Country and by no means advised a lie, Pocahontas was the primary Native American, Lincoln freed the slaves, Hitler murdered six million Jews, Susan B. Anthony gained equal rights for girls, and Martin Luther King stated "I have a dream!" Moses parted the Red Sea, Caesar said "Et tu, Brute?" and the only cause America didn't win the Vietnam War fingers-down like we always do was as a result of they tied our generals' hands and the politicians reduce and run. See? Why do I need to take a historical past course? I do know every thing about history!" E" for Effort. (additionally Noble Effort; I'm Trying My Best; The Lost Cause): The common contemporary fallacy of ethos that one thing must be proper, true, precious, or worthy of respect and honor solely as a result of one (or another person) has put a lot sincere good-religion effort and even sacrifice and bloodshed into it. (See also Appeal to Pity; Argument from Inertia; Heroes All; or Sob Story). An excessive example of this fallacy is Waving the Bloody Shirt (also, the "Blood of the Martyrs" Fallacy), the fallacy that a cause or argument, irrespective of how questionable or reprehensible, cannot be questioned without dishonoring the blood and sacrifice of those that died so nobly for that trigger. E.g., "Defend the patriotic gore / That flecked the streets of Baltimore..." (from the official Maryland State Song). See additionally Cost Bias, The Soldier's Honor Fallacy, and the Argument from Inertia. Either/Or Reasoning: (additionally False Dilemma, All or Nothing Thinking; False Dichotomy, Black/White Fallacy, False Binary): A fallacy of logos that falsely offers only two potential choices despite the fact that a broad range of attainable alternatives, variations and mixtures are at all times readily accessible. E.g., "Either you are 100% Simon Straightarrow or you're as queer as a 3 dollar bill--it's so simple as that and there is not any center floor!" Or, "Either you’re in with us all the best way or you’re a hostile and should be destroyed! What's it gonna be?" Or, in case your efficiency is anything in need of perfect, you consider your self an abject failure. Also applies to falsely contrasting one option or case to a different that's probably not opposed, e.g., falsely opposing "Black Lives Matter" to "Blue Lives Matter" when in reality not a couple of police officers are themselves African American, and African Americans and police are usually not (or ought to not be!) pure enemies. Or, falsely posing a choice of either serving to needy American veterans or helping needy international refugees, when in truth in in the present day's United States there are ample resources accessible to easily do both should we care to take action. See also, Overgeneralization. Equivocation: The fallacy of intentionally failing to outline one's phrases, or knowingly and intentionally using phrases in a distinct sense than the one the viewers will perceive. (E.g., President Bill Clinton stating that he did not have sexual relations with "that girl," that means no sexual penetration, knowing full effectively that the viewers will perceive his statement as "I had no sexual contact of any type with that lady.") It is a corruption of the argument from logos, and a tactic usually used in American jurisprudence. Historically, this referred to a tactic used throughout the Reformation-era religious wars in Europe, when individuals had been compelled to swear loyalty to at least one or another aspect and did as demanded via "equivocation," i.e., "After i solemnly swore true religion and allegiance to the King I actually meant to King Jesus, King of Kings, and to not the evil usurper squatting on the throne right now." This latter type of fallacy is excessively rare right now when the swearing of oaths has turn into successfully meaningless except as obscenity or as speech formally topic to perjury penalties in authorized or judicial settings. The Eschatological Fallacy: The historical fallacy of arguing, "This world is coming to an finish, so..." Popularly refuted by the statement that "Since the world is coming to an end you won't need your life financial savings anyhow, so why not give all of it to me?" Esoteric Knowledge (also Esoteric Wisdom; Gnosticism; Inner Truth; the Inner Sanctum; Must Know): A fallacy from logos and ethos, that there is a few data reserved just for the Wise, the Holy or the Enlightened, (or these with proper Security Clearance), things that the lots can't perceive and don't should know, not less than not until they change into wiser, more trusted or extra "spiritually advanced." The counterpart of this fallacy is that of Obscurantism (also Obscurationism, or Willful Ignorance), that (virtually all the time said in a basso profundo voice) "There are some issues that we mere mortals must never seek to know!" E.g., "Scientific experiments that violate the privateness of the marital mattress and expose the deep and private mysteries of human sexual conduct to the cruel light of science are obscene, sinful and morally evil. There are some issues that we as humans are merely not meant to know!" For the alternative of this latter, see the "Plain Truth Fallacy." See additionally, Argumentum ad Mysteriam. Essentializing: A fallacy of logos that proposes an individual or thing "is what it's and that’s all that it's," and at its core will all the time be the way in which it is correct now (E.g., "All terrorists are monsters, and will nonetheless be terrorist monsters even in the event that they live to be 100," or "'The poor you'll all the time have with you,' so any effort to eradicate poverty is pointless."). Also refers to the fallacy of arguing that one thing is a certain method "by nature," an empty declare that no amount of proof can refute. (E.g., "Americans are chilly and greedy by nature," or "Women are naturally higher cooks than males.") See additionally "Default Bias." The other of that is Relativizing, the usually postmodern fallacy of blithely dismissing any and all arguments against one's standpoint by shrugging one's shoulders and responding " Whatever..., I don't really feel like arguing about it;" "All of it depends...;" "That's your opinion; every little thing's relative;" or falsely invoking Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Quantum Weirdness or the speculation of Multiple Universes so as to confuse, mystify or "refute" an opponent. See also, "Red Herring" and "Appeal to Nature." The Etymological Fallacy: (also, "The Underlying Meaning"): A fallacy of logos, drawing false conclusions from the (most often long-forgotten) linguistic origins of a current phrase, or the alleged meanings or associations of that word in another language. E.g., "As used in physics, electronics and electrical engineering the term 'hysteresis' is grossly sexist because it originally came from the Greek word for 'uterus' or 'womb.'" Or, "I refuse to eat fish! Don't you know that the French phrase for "fish" is 'poisson,' which appears to be like just like the English phrase 'poison'? And doesn't that counsel one thing to you?" Famously, postmodern philosopher Jacques Derrida played on this fallacy at nice length in his (1968) "Plato's Pharmacy." The Excluded Middle: A corrupted argument from logos that proposes that since slightly of something is nice, extra have to be better (or that if much less of one thing is good, none in any respect is even higher). E.g., "If consuming an apple a day is nice for you, consuming an all-apple diet is even better!" or "If a low fat food regimen prolongs your life, a no-fats weight loss program ought to make you reside ceaselessly!" An opposite of this fallacy is that of Excluded Outliers, where one arbitrarily discards proof, examples or results that disprove one's standpoint by merely describing them as "Weird," "Outliers," or "Atypical." See additionally, "The big 'But' Fallacy." Also reverse is the Middle of the Road Fallacy (additionally, Falacia ad Temperantiam; "The Politics of the middle;" Marginalization of the Adversary), the place one demonstrates the "reasonableness" of 1's own standpoint (no matter how extreme) not by itself deserves, however solely or primarily by presenting it as the one "reasonable" path amongst two or more obviously unacceptable extreme alternatives. E.g., anti-Communist scholar Charles Roig (1979) notes that Vladimir Lenin efficiently argued for Bolshevism in Russia as the one out there "reasonable" middle path between bomb-throwing Nihilist terrorists on the ultra-left and a corrupt and hated Czarist autocracy on the proper. As Texas politician and humorist Jim Hightower famously declares in an undated quote, "The center of the highway is for yellow strains and lifeless armadillos." The "F-Bomb" (also Cursing; Obscenity; Profanity). An adolescent fallacy of pathos, making an attempt to defend or strengthen one's argument with gratuitous, unrelated sexual, obscene, vulgar, crude or profane language when such language does nothing to make an argument stronger, apart from perhaps to create a sense of identity with certain younger male "city" audiences. This fallacy additionally includes adding gratuitous sex scenes or "adult" language to an otherwise unrelated novel or film, typically merely to avoid the dreaded "G" rating. Related to this fallacy is the Salacious Fallacy, falsely attracting attention to and thus potential settlement with one's argument by inappropriately sexualizing it, particularly connecting it to some form of intercourse that is perceived as deviant, perverted or prohibited (E.g., Arguing towards Bill Clinton's presidential legacy by persevering with to wave Monica's Blue Dress, or towards Donald Trump's presidency by obsessively highlighting his previous boasting about genital groping). Historically, this dangerous fallacy was deeply implicated with the crime of lynching, during which false, racist accusations in opposition to a Black or minority sufferer had been almost at all times salacious in nature and the sensation concerned was successfully used to whip up public emotion to a murderous pitch. See also, Red Herring. The False Analogy: The fallacy of incorrectly evaluating one thing to another so as to draw a false conclusion. E.g., "Identical to an alley cat must prowl, a standard grownup can’t be tied down to at least one single lover." The other of this fallacy is the Sui Generis Fallacy (additionally, Differance), a postmodern stance that rejects the validity of analogy and of inductive reasoning altogether because any given particular person, place, thing or concept underneath consideration is "sui generis" i.e., different and distinctive, in a category unto itself. Finish the Job: The dangerous contemporary fallacy, typically aimed at a lesser-educated or working class viewers, that an motion or standpoint (or the continuation of that motion or standpoint) is probably not questioned or mentioned as a result of there is "a job to be accomplished" or completed, falsely assuming "jobs" are meaningless but by no means to be questioned. Sometimes these concerned internalize ("purchase into") the "job" and make the duty part of their own ethos. (E.g., "Ours is to not motive why / Ours is but to do or die.") Related to this is the "Only a Job" fallacy. (E.g., "How can torturers stand to look at themselves in the mirror? But I guess it is Ok as a result of for them it's only a job like any other, the job that they get paid to do.") See additionally "Blind Loyalty," "The Soldiers' Honor Fallacy" and the "Argument from Inertia."
The Free Speech Fallacy: The infantile fallacy of responding to challenges to at least one's statements and standpoints by whining, "It's a free country, isn't it? I can say something I wish to!" A contemporary case of this fallacy is the "Safe Space," or "Safe Place," where it is not allowed to refute, problem and even talk about another's beliefs as a result of that could be too uncomfortable or "triggery" for emotionally fragile people. E.g., "All I told him was, 'Jesus loves the little children,' however then he turned around and asked me 'But what about start defects?' That's mean. I feel I'll cry!" Prof. Bill Hart Davidson (2017) notes that "Ironically, probably the most strident requires 'safety' come from those that need us to subject protections for discredited ideas. Things that science doesn't help AND that have destroyed lives - issues like the inherent superiority of one race over one other. Those ideas wither beneath demands for evidence. They *are* unwelcome. But let's be clear: they are unwelcome as a result of they haven't survived the problem of scrutiny." Ironically, in contemporary America "free speech" has often turn out to be shorthand for freedom of racist, offensive and even neo-Nazi expression, ideological traits that when in power typically quash free speech. Additionally, a latest (2017) scientific examine has discovered that, in fact, "people think tougher and produce higher political arguments when their views are challenged" and never artificially protected with out problem. The elemental Attribution Error (also, Self Justification): A corrupt argument from ethos, this fallacy happens as a result of observing and comparing behavior. "You assume that the bad conduct of others is attributable to character flaws and foul dispositions whereas your behavior is defined by the environment. So, for instance, I stand up within the morning at 10 a.m. I say it's because my neighbors get together till 2 within the morning (situation) but I say that the explanation why you do it's that you're lazy. Interestingly, it is more widespread in individualistic societies where we worth self volition. Collectivist societies are likely to look at the atmosphere more. (It happens there, too, nevertheless it is way less common.)" [Due to scholar Joel Sax for this!] The obverse of this fallacy is Self Deprecation (additionally Self Debasement), where, out of either a false humility or a genuine lack of self-esteem, one deliberately puts oneself down, most often in hopes of attracting denials, gratifying compliments and reward.

Gaslighting: A recently-outstanding, vicious fallacy of logic, denying or invalidating a person's personal information and experiences by intentionally twisting or distorting identified info, memories, scenes, occasions and evidence with a view to disorient a weak opponent and to make him or her doubt his/her sanity. E.g., "Who're you going to imagine? Me, or your individual eyes?" Or, "You claim you discovered me in bed with her? Think again! You're loopy! You critically must see a shrink." A quite common, though merciless occasion of Gaslighting that seems to have been notably acquainted amongst mid-twentieth century generations is the fallacy of Emotional Invalidation, questioning, after the fact, the reality or "validity" of affective states, either one other's or one's own. E.g., "Sure, I made it occur from starting to finish, however but it surely wasn't me doing it, it was simply my silly hormones betraying me." Or, "You did not really mean it whenever you said you 'hate' Mommy. Now take a time-out and you'll really feel higher." Or, "No, you're probably not in love; it is simply infatuation or 'puppy love.'" The fallacy of "Gaslighting" is named after British playwright Patrick Hamilton's 1938 stage play "Gas Light," often known as "Angel Street." See also, Blind Loyalty, "The massive Brain/Little Brain Fallacy," The Affective Fallacy, and "Alternative Truth." Guilt by Association: The fallacy of making an attempt to refute or condemn someone's standpoint, arguments or actions by evoking the unfavorable ethos of those with whom the speaker is identified or of a gaggle, get together, religion or race to which he or she belongs or was as soon as related to. A form of Ad Hominem Argument, e.g., "Don't hearken to her. She's a Republican so you can't trust anything she says," or "Are you or have you ever ever been a member of the Communist Party?" An excessive occasion of that is the Machiavellian "For my enemies, nothing" Fallacy, the place real or perceived "enemies" are by definition always flawed and have to be conceded nothing, not even the time of day, e.g., "He's a Republican, so even when he stated the sky is blue I would not imagine him." The Half Truth (additionally Card Stacking, Stacking the Deck, Incomplete Information): A corrupt argument from logos, the fallacy of consciously deciding on, accumulating and sharing solely that proof that supports one's personal standpoint, telling the strict reality but deliberately minimizing or omitting vital key particulars in order to falsify the bigger picture and assist a false conclusion.(E.g. "The fact is that Bangladesh is among the world's quickest-rising international locations and may boast of a young, bold and laborious-working inhabitants, a household-constructive culture, a delightful, heat climate of tropical beaches and swaying palms where it by no means snows, low cost medical and dental care, a vibrant faith tradition and a mess of places of worship, an exquisite, world-class spicy local curry delicacies and a swinging leisure scene. Taken collectively, all these solid info clearly show that Bangladesh is one of the world’s most fascinating places for younger families to dwell, work and raise a family.") See also, Confirmation Bias. Hero-Busting (also, "The right is the Enemy of the nice"): A postmodern fallacy of ethos underneath which, since nothing and no one in this world is ideal there will not be and have never been any heroes: Washington and Jefferson held slaves, Lincoln was (by our contemporary requirements) a racist, Karl Marx sexually exploited his household's own younger dwell-in home worker and got her pregnant, Martin Luther King Jr. had an eye for ladies too, Lenin condemned feminism, the Mahatma drank his personal urine (ugh!), Pope Francis is wrong on abortion, capitalism, same-sex marriage and women's ordination, Mother Teresa loved suffering and was mistaken on just about the whole lot else too, and so on., etc Also applies to the now close to-universal political tactic of ransacking every thing an opponent has said, written or executed since infancy so as to search out something to misinterpret or condemn (and we all have something!). An early instance of this latter tactic is deftly described in Robert Penn Warren's traditional (1946) novel, All the King's Men. This is the opposite of the "Heroes All" fallacy, beneath. The "Hero Busting" fallacy has additionally been selectively employed at the service of the Identity Fallacy (see below) to falsely "show" that "you can't belief anybody" but a member of "our" identity-group since everyone else, even the so-called "heroes" or "allies" of other teams, are all racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, or hate "us." E.g., In 1862 Abraham Lincoln said he was prepared to settle the U.S. Civil War either with or with out freeing the slaves if it would preserve the Union, thus "conclusively proving" that all whites are viciously racist at coronary heart and that African Americans must do for self and never trust any of "them," not even those who claim to be allies. Heroes All (additionally, "Everybody's a Winner"): The contemporary fallacy that everyone is above common or extraordinary. A corrupted argument from pathos (not wanting anybody to lose or to feel bad). Thus, every member of the Armed Services, previous or present, who serves honorably is a national hero, every scholar who competes within the Science Fair wins a ribbon or trophy, and each racer is awarded a winner's yellow jersey. This corruption of the argument from pathos, a lot ridiculed by disgraced American humorist Garrison Keeler, ignores the truth that if everyone wins no one wins, and if everybody's a hero no one's a hero. The logical results of this fallacy is that, as children's writer Alice Childress writes (1973), "A hero ain't nothing but a sandwich." See additionally the "Soldiers' Honor Fallacy." Hoyle's Fallacy: A fallacy of logos, falsely assuming that a attainable event of low (even vanishingly low) likelihood can by no means have occurred and/or would never happen in actual life. E.g., "The likelihood of something as complex as human DNA emerging by purely random evolution in the time the earth has existed is so negligible that it is for all sensible purposes inconceivable and must have required divine intervention." Or, "The possibility of a casual, Saturday-night time poker player being dealt four aces off an sincere, shuffled deck is so infinitesimal that it might never happen even once in a traditional lifetime! That proves you cheated!" See additionally, Argument from Incredulity. An obverse of Hoyle's Fallacy is "You Can't Win if You don't Play," (additionally, "Someone's gonna win and it might as effectively be YOU!") a common and cruel contemporary fallacy used to influence susceptible audiences, notably the poor, the mathematically illiterate and gambling addicts to throw their cash away on lotteries, horse races, casinos and different lengthy-shot playing schemes. I Wish I Had a Magic Wand: The fallacy of regretfully (and falsely) proclaiming oneself powerless to alter a nasty or objectionable state of affairs over which one has power. E.g., "What can we do about gas costs? As Secretary of Energy I wish I had a magic wand, however I don't" [shrug] . Or, "No, you can't give up piano classes. I want I had a magic wand and will teach you piano in a single day, but I don't, so like it or not, you have to keep on practicing." The mother or father, in fact, ignores the possibility that the child may not need or have to study piano. See also, TINA. The Identity Fallacy (additionally Identity Politics; "Die away, ye outdated varieties and logic!"): A corrupt postmodern argument from ethos, a variant on the Argumentum ad Hominem during which the validity of one's logic, proof, experience or arguments relies upon not on their own energy however reasonably on whether the one arguing is a member of a given social class, generation, nationality, religious or ethnic group, color, gender or sexual orientation, career, occupation or subgroup. In this fallacy, valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside or "othered" with out comment or consideration, as merely not worth arguing about solely due to the lack of correct background or ethos of the particular person making the argument, or as a result of the one arguing doesn't self-identify as a member of the "in-group." E.g., "You'd understand me instantly in the event you have been Burmese however since you're not there isn't any approach I can clarify it to you," or "Nobody but one other nurse can know what a nurse has to undergo." Identity fallacies are strengthened by frequent ritual, language, and discourse. However, these fallacies are often self-fascinated, pushed by the egotistical ambitions of academics, politicians and would-be group leaders anxious to construct their very own careers by carving out a particular identity group constituency to the exclusion of present broader-based mostly identities and management. An Identity Fallacy could result in scorn or rejection of doubtlessly useful allies, real or prospective, as a result of they don't seem to be of one's own identity. The Identity Fallacy promotes an exclusivist, typically cultish "do for self" philosophy which in right this moment's world virtually ensures self-marginalization and ultimate defeat. A recent software of the Identity Fallacy is the fallacious accusation of "Cultural Appropriation," in which those who will not be of the correct Identity are condemned for "appropriating" the cuisine, clothes, language or music of a marginalized group, forgetting the old axiom that "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." Accusations of Cultural Appropriation fairly often stem from competing egocentric financial pursuits (E.g., "What right do those p*nche Gringos need to arrange a taco place right here on Guadalupe Drive to take away enterprise from Doña Teresa's Taquería? They even dare to play Mexican music in their dining room! That's cultural appropriation!"). See also, Othering. Infotainment (additionally Infortainment; Fake News; InfoWars); A really corrupt and harmful trendy media-driven fallacy that deliberately and knowingly stirs in details, news, falsities and outright lies with entertainment, a mixture normally concocted for particular, base ideological and revenue-making motives. Origins of this fallacy predate the current period in the type of "Yellow" or "Tabloid" Journalism. This deadly fallacy has caused limitless social unrest, discontent and even capturing wars (e.g., the Spanish American War) over the course of modern historical past. Practitioners of this fallacy generally hypocritically justify its use on the premise that their readers/listeners/viewers "know beforehand" (or ought to know) that the content material supplied isn't meant as real information and is obtainable for leisure purposes solely, but in reality this caveat is never noticed by uncritical audiences who eagerly swallow what the purveyors put forth. See additionally Dog-Whistle Politics. The Job's Comforter Fallacy (also, "Karma is a bi**h;" "What goes round comes round."): The fallacy that since there is no such thing as a such thing as random likelihood and we (I, my group, or my country) are under particular safety of heaven, any misfortune or natural disaster that we undergo must be a punishment for our own or someone else's secret sin or open wickedness. The alternative of the Appeal to Heaven, that is the fallacy employed by the Westboro Baptist Church members who protest fallen service members' funerals all across the United States. See also, Magical Thinking. Just Do it. (also, "Discover a means;" "I do not care the way you do it;" "Accomplish the mission;" "By Any Means Necessary." ): A pure, abusive Argumentum advert Baculum (argument from force), during which somebody in energy arbitrarily waves apart or overrules the moral objections of subordinates or followers and orders them to perform a goal by any means required, fair or foul The clear implication is that unethical or immoral strategies should be used. E.g., "You say there isn't any means you may end the dig on schedule because you discovered an old pioneer gravesite with a fancy tombstone on the excavation site? Well, find a method! Make it disappear! Just do it! I do not wish to know the way you do it, just do it! That is one million greenback contract and we'd like it executed by Tuesday." See also, Plausible Deniability. Just Plain Folks (additionally, "Values"): This corrupt modern argument from ethos argues to a much less-educated or rural viewers that the one arguing is "simply plain people" who is a "plain talker," "says what s/he is thinking," "scorns political correctness," someone who "you don't need a dictionary to know" and who thinks like the viewers and is thus worthy of belief, not like some member of the fancy-talking, latte-sipping Left Coast Political Elite, some "double-domed professor," "inside-the-beltway Washington bureaucrat," "tree-hugger" or different despised outsider who "does not suppose like we do" or "doesn't share our values." This can be a counterpart to the Ad Hominem Fallacy and most often carries a distinct reek of xenophobia or racism as well. See additionally the Plain Truth Fallacy and the Simpleton's Fallacy. The Law of Unintended Consequences (also, "Every Revolution Ends up Eating its own Young:" Grit; Resilience Doctrine): In this very harmful, archly pessimistic postmodern fallacy the bogus "Law of Unintended Consequences," as soon as a semi-humorous satirical corollary of "Murphy's Law," is elevated to to the status of an iron regulation of historical past. This fallacy arbitrarily proclaims a priori that since we will by no means know the whole lot or securely foresee anything, sooner or later in today's "advanced world" unforeseeable adverse penalties and adverse unwanted side effects (so-referred to as "unknown unknowns") will always find yourself blindsiding and overwhelming, defeating and vitiating any and all naive "do-gooder" efforts to enhance our world. Instead, one must at all times expect defeat and be able to roll with the punches by growing "grit" or "resilience" as a primary survival skill. This nihilist fallacy is a practical negation of the the possibility of any valid argument from logos. See also, TINA. Lying with Statistics: The contemporary fallacy of misusing true figures and numbers to "prove" unrelated claims. (e.g. "In real terms, attending school has never been cheaper than it's now. When expressed as a proportion of the nationwide debt, the price of getting a faculty training is definitely far much less at present than it was back in 1965!"). A corrupted argument from logos, often preying on the public's perceived or actual mathematical ignorance. This contains the Tiny Percentage Fallacy, that an amount or action that is quite significant in and of itself one way or the other turns into insignificant just because it is a tiny share of one thing much larger. E.g., the arbitrary arrest, detention or interception of "solely" just a few hundred legally-boarded worldwide travelers as a tiny share of the tens of hundreds who normally arrive. Under this same fallacy a consumer who would choke on spending an extra dollar for 2 cans of peas will usually ignore $50 additional on the worth of a automobile or $1000 additional on the value of a home just because these variations are "solely" a tiny proportion of the a lot bigger quantity being spent. Historically, gross sales taxes or value-added taxes (VAT) have efficiently gained public acceptance and remain "beneath the radar" due to this latter fallacy, regardless that amounting to a whole bunch or 1000's of dollars a year in extra tax burden. See also Half-reality, the Snow Job, and the Red Herring. Magical Thinking (also, the Sin of Presumption; Expect a Miracle!): An historic but deluded fallacy of logos, arguing that in relation to "crunch time," provided one has enough religion, prays onerous sufficient, says the best phrases, does the correct rituals, "names it and claims it," or "claims the Promise," God will all the time suspend the laws of the universe and work a miracle on the request of or for the good thing about the True Believer. In practice this nihilist fallacy denies the existence of a rational or predictable universe and thus the potential of any valid argument from logic. See also, Positive Thinking, the Appeal to Heaven, and the Job's Comforter fallacy. Mala Fides (Arguing in Bad Faith; also Sophism): Using an argument that the arguer himself or herself is aware of will not be legitimate. E.g., An unbeliever attacking believers by throwing verses from their own Holy Scriptures at them, or a lawyer arguing for the innocence of somebody whom s/he knows full nicely to be guilty. This latter is a common observe in American jurisprudence, and is typically portrayed as the worst face of "Sophism." [Special thanks to Bradley Steffens for stating this fallacy!] Included below this fallacy is the fallacy of Motivational Truth (additionally, Demagogy, or Campaign Promises), deliberately mendacity to "the people" to gain their help or motivate them toward some motion the rhetor perceives to be fascinating (utilizing evil discursive means toward a "good" materials finish). A particularly bizarre and corrupt form of this latter fallacy is Self Deception (also, Whistling by the Graveyard). through which one intentionally and knowingly deludes oneself so as to attain a purpose, or perhaps merely to suppress anxiety and maintain one's power level, enthusiasm, morale, peace of thoughts or sanity in moments of adversity. Measurability: A corrupt argument from logos and ethos (that of science and arithmetic), the modern Fallacy of Measurability proposes that if something can't be measured, quantified and replicated it does not exist, or is "nothing however anecdotal, touchy-feely stuff" unworthy of severe consideration, i.e., mere gossip or subjective opinion. Often, attaining "Measurability" essentially demands preselecting, "fiddling" or "massaging" the out there data merely to be able to make it statistically tractable, or to be able to support a desired conclusion. Scholar Thomas Persing thus describes "The modernist fallacy of falsely and inappropriately applying norms, standardizations, and knowledge point requirements to quantify productivity or success. That is similar to complicated question, measurability, and oversimplification fallacies the place the consumer makes an attempt to categorize sophisticated / diverse matters into phrases that when measured, suit their place. For instance, the calculation of inflation within the United States would not embody the modifications in the price to gasoline, as a result of the value of gasoline is just too volatile, despite the very fact gasoline is critical for most people to stay their lives within the United States." See also, "A Priori Argument," "Lying with Statistics," and the "Procrustean Fallacy." Mind-reading (Also, "The Fallacy of Speculation;" "I can read you want a e book"): An ancient fallacy, a corruption of stasis idea, speculating about another person's thoughts, feelings, motivations and "physique language" and then claiming to understand these clearly, sometimes extra accurately than the person in query knows themselves. The rhetor deploys this phony "information" as a fallacious warrant for or in opposition to a given standpoint. Scholar Myron Peto affords for example the baseless claim that "Obama doesn’t a da** [sic] for human rights." Assertions that "call for speculation" are rightly rejected as fallacious in U.S. judicial proceedings however far too often cross uncontested in public discourse. The opposite of this fallacy is the postmodern fallacy of Mind Blindness (also, the Autist's Fallacy), a whole denial of any normal human capability for "Theory of Mind," postulating the utter incommensurability and privacy of minds and thus the impossibility of ever figuring out or actually understanding another's ideas, feelings, motivations or intents. This fallacy, a lot promoted by the late postmodernist guru Jacques Derrida, necessarily vitiates any type of Stasis Theory. However, the Fallacy of Mind Blindness has been decisively refuted in several studies, together with recent (2017) research published by the Association for Psychological Science, and a (2017) Derxel University examine indicating how "our minds align when we communicate." Moral Licensing: The contemporary ethical fallacy that one's consistently moral life, good conduct or latest extreme suffering or sacrifice earns him/her the correct to commit an immoral act with out repercussions, penalties or punishment. E.g., "I've been good all 12 months, so one bad won't matter," or "After what I've been by, God knows I need this." The fallacy of Moral Licensing can also be sometimes utilized to nations, e.g., "Those that criticize repression and the Gulag in the previous USSR forget what extraordinary suffering the Russians went by way of in World War II and the thousands and thousands upon thousands and thousands who died." See also Argument from Motives. The opposite of this fallacy is the (excessively uncommon in our times) moral fallacy of Scruples, by which one obsesses to pathological excess about one's unintentional, forgotten, unconfessed or unforgiven sins and due to them, the seemingly inevitable prospect of eternal damnation. Moral Superiority (also, Self Righteousness; the Moral High Ground): An historic, immoral and extremely dangerous fallacy, enunciated in Thomistic / Scholastic philosophy in the late Middle Ages, arguing that Evil has no rights that the good and the Righteous are bound to respect. That way lies torture, heretic-burning, and the Spanish Inquisition. Those who follow this vicious fallacy reject any "moral equivalency" (i.e., even-handed treatment) between themselves (the Righteous) and their enemies (the Wicked), against whom anything is fair, and to whom nothing have to be conceded, not even the suitable to life. This fallacy is a selected denial of the historic "Golden Rule," and has been the cause of countless intractable conflict, since if one is Righteous no negotiation with Evil and its minions is feasible; The one conceivable highway to a "just" peace is thru complete victory, i.e., absolutely the defeat and liquidation of one's Wicked enemies. American people singer and Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan expertly demolishes this fallacy in his 1963 protest tune, "With God on Our Side." See also the Appeal to Heaven, and Moving the Goalposts. Mortification (also, Live as if You're Dying; Pleasure-hating; No Pain No Gain): An ancient fallacy of logos, making an attempt to "beat the flesh into submission" by excessive train or ascetic practices, deliberate starvation or infliction of ache, denying the undeniable proven fact that discomfort and pain exist for the purpose of warning of lasting injury to the physique. Extreme examples of this fallacy are various types of self-flagellation resembling practiced by the new Mexico "Penitentes" during Holy Week or by Shia devotees during Muharram. More acquainted contemporary manifestations of this fallacy are excessive "insanity" exercise regimes not intended for normal well being, fitness or aggressive purposes but just to "toughen" or "punish" the body. Certain pop-nutritional theories and diets seem based on this fallacy as well. Some contemporary experts recommend that self-mortification (an English phrase associated to the Latinate French root "mort," or "dying.") is actually "suicide on the installment plan." Others suggest that it involves a narcotic-like addiction to the physique's natural endorphins. The opposite of this fallacy is the historical fallacy of Hedonism, searching for and valuing bodily pleasure as an excellent in itself, simply for its own sake. Moving the Goalposts (additionally, Changing the principles; All's Fair in Love and War; The Nuclear Option; "Winning is not every thing, it's the only factor"): A fallacy of logos, demanding certain proof or evidence, a sure degree of assist or a sure number of votes to determine an issue, and then when this is offered, demanding much more, totally different or higher support with a purpose to deny victory to an opponent. For individuals who observe the fallacy of Moral Superiority (above), Moving the Goalposts is often perceived as perfectly good and permissible if obligatory to forestall the victory of Wickedness and make sure the triumph of one's personal aspect, i.e, the Righteous. MYOB (Mind Your own Business; also You are not the Boss of Me; "None of yer beeswax," "So What?", The Appeal to Privacy): The contemporary fallacy of arbitrarily prohibiting or terminating any discussion of one's own standpoints or habits, no matter how absurd, dangerous, evil or offensive, by drawing a phony curtain of privacy around oneself and one's actions. A corrupt argument from ethos (one's personal). E.g., "Sure, I was doing eighty and weaving between lanes on Mesa Street--what's it to you? You're not a cop, you're not my nanny. It's my business if I would like to hurry, and what you are promoting to get the hell out of my manner. Mind your personal damn enterprise!" Or, "Yeah, I killed my child. So what? Butt out! It wasn't your brat, so it's none of your damn enterprise!" Rational discussion is minimize off because "it is none of your enterprise!" See additionally, "Taboo." The counterpart of this is "Nobody Will Ever Know," (additionally "What occurs in Vegas stays in Vegas;" "I think We're Alone Now," or the guts of Darkness Syndrome) the fallacy that simply because no one important is looking (or because one is on trip, or away in college, or overseas) one may freely commit immoral, egocentric, adverse or evil acts at will with out anticipating any of the normal consequences or punishment . Author Joseph Conrad graphically describes this kind of moral degradation within the character of Kurtz in his classic novel, Heart of Darkness. Name-Calling: A variety of the "Ad Hominem" argument. The dangerous fallacy that, simply due to who one is or is alleged to be, any and all arguments, disagreements or objections in opposition to one's standpoint or actions are robotically racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, bigoted, discriminatory or hateful. E.g., "My stand on abortion is the only appropriate one. To disagree with me, argue with me or query my judgment in any manner would s